I'll just leave this here....

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

A new report from Sept 2011:

Results  The available evidence suggests that the prevalence of cannabis use among Dutch citizens rose and fell as the number of coffeeshops increased and later declined, but only modestly. The coffeeshops do not appear to encourage escalation into heavier use or lengthier using careers, although treatment rates for cannabis are higher than elsewhere in Europe. Scatterplot analyses suggest that Dutch patterns of use are very typical for Europe, and that the 'separation of markets' may indeed have somewhat weakened the link between cannabis use and the use of cocaine or amphetamines.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x/abstract Robert J. MacCoun (Prof. Goldman School of Public Policy and Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California, Berkeley)

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

GOSH, it sure seems like that would be a more reasonable way of dealing with...

oh never mind.

I've got some agree on this.

A foregone conclusion is just where you...ah fuck it?

[AFK]

A new report from Sept 2011:

Results  The available evidence suggests that the prevalence of cannabis use among Dutch citizens rose and fell as the number of coffeeshops increased and later declined, but only modestly. The coffeeshops do not appear to encourage escalation into heavier use or lengthier using careers, although treatment rates for cannabis are higher than elsewhere in Europe. Scatterplot analyses suggest that Dutch patterns of use are very typical for Europe, and that the 'separation of markets' may indeed have somewhat weakened the link between cannabis use and the use of cocaine or amphetamines.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x/abstract Robert J. MacCoun (Prof. Goldman School of Public Policy and Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California, Berkeley)

Hmm, but my understanding is that marijuana is not sold in coffeeshops everywhere in the Netherlands, and that indeed there are localities in the Netherlands that were very adamant to NOT have it be allowed.  Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that but I'm fairly certain I've read that in different reports.

So, the question I would have concerning this study, and one that cannot be answered unless one of y'all are going to pony up the dough so we can read the full report, the question would be, did they study the population solely in those localities where it is permitted or the whole population of the Netherlands?

If it is the whole population than I would suggest the study isn't very conclusive.  I think a more rigorous and conclusive study would be to look at the Dutch in those towns where marijuana is being sold.  I would also run a separate, parallel study with towns adjacent to those towns where it was sold.  What did the pattern look like there?  I mean, because I would expect little to no change in the pattern in those areas that were geographically removed from the localities where it is being sold.  

So, in my opinion, this study, that is this abstract of the study is interesting but I'm not sure it is terribly conclusive, based on what we know about the study from the abstract.  

[AFK]

Re: the maine vs netherlands thing. While i do believe the discrepancy has a lot to do with the fact that its legalized, one must also not overlook the fact that theres probably not a whole hell of a lot to do if youre a teenager in a state that is 90% forest.

Rwhn's goals might be better met by making the state more entertaining to the average joe.

Actually, while in some cases the Maine numbers are higher, they aren't radically different than the average numbers for the entire U.S.  We tend to be a lot higher in the department of prescription drug abuse, but everywhere else we're, statistically, within the national pattern. 

I think part of our issue with prescription drug abuse is that we are an old state, and getting older.  Our prescriptions-per-person numbers are really high compared to a lot of other states.  So there are a lot of drugs in homes that are being stolen, diverted, etc. 

[AFK]

In "The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco" Craig Reinarman, PhD, Peter D. A. Cohen, PhD and Hendrien L. Kaal, PhD, the abstract concludes:

Results. With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.

Conclusions. Drug policies may have less impact on cannabis use than is currently thought.

But when they are talking about the impact on cannabis use who are they talking about?  What age range?  (For the record, my nanny filter is blocking that link so I can't actually read the document)

If it is the entire population from 12 to grave, I'm not sure that is very conclusive, at least not for my interests, which of course are youth.  Because we know from the work of Hawkins and Catalano that community norms (i.e. rules and laws and how they are enforced) do have a known influence on substance use as does perception of harm.  There is no question that if marijuana is legalized the the perception of harm will go down amongst youth.  When I see my state's new data for 2011, I guarantee you that we will see the perception of harm has decreased, thanks to medical marijuana.  And I guarantee you we will be seeing a corresponding increase in use. 

What population are they talking about in that study? 

[East Coast Hustle]

So, in my opinion, this study, that is this abstract of the study is interesting but I'm not sure it is terribly conclusive, based on what we know about the study from the abstract.  

Could you repeat that again in English?

[East Coast Hustle]

You keep referencing Hawkins and Catalano, to the apparent exclusion of any other researchers. Makes me wonder if you've bothered with any other researchers. Because it gives the appearance that you've drawn these conclusions from a very narrow scope of the available material, and you know what they say about conclusions.

[Placid Dingo]

As  far as the SA study goes, I'm not sure the point it's making is completely valid. I'm in QLD and there was a fuckton of press over the decriminalisation. Instead of suggesting decriminalisation had no impact, might not the suggestion also be made that the impact across the nation of a lowered perception of the dangers of cannabis was that usage rose in several states?

[AFK]

You keep referencing Hawkins and Catalano, to the apparent exclusion of any other researchers. Makes me wonder if you've bothered with any other researchers. Because it gives the appearance that you've drawn these conclusions from a very narrow scope of the available material, and you know what they say about conclusions.

If you have research that shows that community norms are NOT a protective factor and that perception of harm is NOT a risk factor, please share. 

[AFK]

As  far as the SA study goes, I'm not sure the point it's making is completely valid. I'm in QLD and there was a fuckton of press over the decriminalisation. Instead of suggesting decriminalisation had no impact, might not the suggestion also be made that the impact across the nation of a lowered perception of the dangers of cannabis was that usage rose in several states?

I think that makes sense.  I think with decriminilazation, as opposed to full out legalization, the social access piece probably wouldn't play as powerful of a role as the perception of harm.  It would be interesting to see, though, a more focused study on that particular question. 

[AFK]

So, in my opinion, this study, that is this abstract of the study is interesting but I'm not sure it is terribly conclusive, based on what we know about the study from the abstract.  

Could you repeat that again in English?

Without access to the full article we don't know the actual research protocol.  We don't know the specifics of the demographics studied.  If it includes populations of towns where they didn't allow the sale of marijuana, I think it muddies the results in terms of determining impact.  I wouldn't expect to see much difference in useage patterns in those areas that are geographically removed form towns where it was sold.  So their usage rates are going to confound the entire results.  But they may well have controlled for that, but the abstract says nothing about that and we would need the full article to know for sure. 

[East Coast Hustle]

You keep referencing Hawkins and Catalano, to the apparent exclusion of any other researchers. Makes me wonder if you've bothered with any other researchers. Because it gives the appearance that you've drawn these conclusions from a very narrow scope of the available material, and you know what they say about conclusions.

If you have research that shows that community norms are NOT a protective factor and that perception of harm is NOT a risk factor, please share.  

If YOU have a link to the one study that you keep citing as gospel, please share.

[East Coast Hustle]

Oh, and I noticed you decided to completely ignore my point about the casino.

[AFK]

You keep referencing Hawkins and Catalano, to the apparent exclusion of any other researchers. Makes me wonder if you've bothered with any other researchers. Because it gives the appearance that you've drawn these conclusions from a very narrow scope of the available material, and you know what they say about conclusions.

If you have research that shows that community norms are NOT a protective factor and that perception of harm is NOT a risk factor, please share.  

If YOU have a link to the one study that you keep citing as gospel, please share.

Well, it's more of a body of work than just one, solitary study.  But here is a link that provides a nice summary of the concepts.

http://www.missoulaforum.org/_risk_and_protective_factors.htm

And if you are actually interested in learning more about their work, Google will help you find more of their work.  Somehow I get a feeling that might not be your motivation. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In "The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco" Craig Reinarman, PhD, Peter D. A. Cohen, PhD and Hendrien L. Kaal, PhD, the abstract concludes:

Results. With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.

Conclusions. Drug policies may have less impact on cannabis use than is currently thought.

But when they are talking about the impact on cannabis use who are they talking about?  What age range?  (For the record, my nanny filter is blocking that link so I can't actually read the document)

If it is the entire population from 12 to grave, I'm not sure that is very conclusive, at least not for my interests, which of course are youth.  Because we know from the work of Hawkins and Catalano that community norms (i.e. rules and laws and how they are enforced) do have a known influence on substance use as does perception of harm.  There is no question that if marijuana is legalized the the perception of harm will go down amongst youth.  When I see my state's new data for 2011, I guarantee you that we will see the perception of harm has decreased, thanks to medical marijuana.  And I guarantee you we will be seeing a corresponding increase in use. 

What population are they talking about in that study? 

The perception of harm?  A friend of my son's - well, his friend's brother, anyway - got busted for a teensy amount of pot a year back.  He managed to avoid jail, but he is now utterly fucked.  No college assistance, no option to join the military, etc.

He's doomed to the lower income brackets for the rest of his life, because he made a poor decision at 16 (and we all know that 16 year olds typically make great decisions).

That's harm.  Not the "perception of harm", harm.

So explain to me why prohibition is a good thing?  It ruins the lives of teenagers, and it keeps the cartels in business.  I am waiting for an upside, here.